If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Associated Press: Obama can't keep his Libyan War bullshit straight

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama wanted to tell a hesitant America why he launched a military assault in Libya, and he wanted to describe it on his terms — limited, sensible, moral and backed by international partners with the shared goal of protecting Libyans from a ruthless despot.
Trouble is, the war he described Monday doesn't quite match the fight the United States is in.

It also doesn't line up with the conflict Obama himself had seemed to presage, when he expressly called for Moammar Gadhafi's overthrow or resignation. Obama's stated goals stop well short of that. And although Obama talked of the risks of a long war, he did not say just when or on what terms the United States would leave Libya.

Obama never directly mention the Libyan rebels seeking Gadhafi's overthrow, even though the heavy U.S.-led firepower trained on Gadhafi's forces has allowed those rebels to regain momentum and push toward Gadhafi's territory.

"We have intervened to stop a massacre," Obama said.

Ten days into a conflict many Americans say they do not understand, Obama laid out a moral imperative for intervening against a murderous tyrant, and doing so without the lengthy international dithering that allowed so much blood to be spilled in Bosnia. His address at the National Defense University echoed campaign rhetoric about restoring U.S. moral pride of place after squandering it in Iraq.

"Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world's many challenges," Obama said. "But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act."
Gadhafi's forces have been largely pinned down and unable to mount a massacre since the first hours of the war, while U.S. and NATO warplanes have become an unacknowledged aerial arm of the rebels. Obama said the United States will help the opposition, an oblique reference to the rebels.

Over the weekend U.S. Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt aircraft, designed to provide battlefield support to friendly ground forces, flew attack missions for the first time in this conflict. The Pentagon also disclosed Monday that Air Force AC-130 gunships, low-flying aircraft armed with a 105mm howitzer and a 40mm cannon, had joined the battle. Those two types of aircraft give the U.S. more ability to confront pro-Gadhafi forces in urban areas with less risk of civilian casualties.

The Pentagon's lead spokesman on Libya operations, Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, told reporters Monday that the U.S. military is not coordinating with the rebels. But he left little doubt that, by design or not, Western air power is propelling the rebels forward.

"Clearly they're achieving a benefit from the actions that we're taking," Gortney said. He displayed a chart that showed rebels advancing within 80 miles of Sirte, Gadhafi's home town.

If the purpose of the U.N.-sanctioned military action is to protect civilians, does that include pro-Gadhafi civilians who are likely to be endangered in places like Sirte that are in the rebels' crosshairs? If not, it is difficult to see the Western intervention as a neutral humanitarian act not aligned with the rebels.

The first goal of the intervention was to prevent a massacre of civilians in Benghazi, the eastern Libyan city where Gadhafi forces were threatening to crush the rebellion two weeks ago. Gadhafi said he would "show no mercy."
A U.S.-led assault quickly accomplished that first goal. A no-fly zone was established two weekends ago with little resistance. The U.S. and its partners then launched airstrikes on Gadhafi supply lines and other military targets not only near Benghazi but around other contested areas as well.
But the role of Western air power then went beyond that initial humanitarian aim, to in effect provide air cover for the rebels while pounding Gadhafi forces in a bid to break their will or capacity to fight.

Now U.S. forces are pulling back, handing much of the responsibility for the open-ended military campaign to allies, as Obama said they would.
"So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: The United States of America has done what we said we would do," Obama said with clear satisfaction.

He meant that the U.S. had hewed to its stated role under a U.N. Security Council resolution that authorized force.

But he acknowledged that the U.N. mandate doesn't extend to Gadhafi's ouster, even if many of the nations carrying it out might wish for that. Obama was frank about the reasons why.

"Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake," Obama said.

It would shatter the international partnership he relies on for diplomatic cover and security backup. It would probably mean sending U.S. ground forces into yet another Muslim nation, something Obama has said he will not do in Libya. It would undoubtedly increase the risk to the U.S. military, the costs of the war and U.S. responsibility for shoring up and protecting whatever Libya might emerge, Obama said.

"To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq," Obama said, where thousands of U.S. forces remain eight years after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

"That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya," Obama said.
Getting rid of Gadhafi "may not happen overnight," Obama warned, in his first acknowledgement of the stalemate with the rebels that many analysts and some of his own military advisers suspect is coming. Gadhafi, Obama said, might well cling to power for some time.

The United States is considering arming the rebels, directly or indirectly, and U.S. officials say the U.N. resolution would allow that. Obama mentioned nothing about the possibility of civil war in Libya, or what the U.S. might do if the war grinds on for months.

Obama still faces questions about why Libya and not Yemen, or not Syria. One of his closest national security advisers, Denis McDonough, told reporters Monday that the administration doesn't "get very hung up on this question of precedent."

"We don't make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent," McDonough said.

Throughout his address, Obama seemed to be answering his own criticism of past wars and past leaders who committed military force too hastily or too hesitantly.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner never used the word "war" to describe what's happening in Libya, but made a point of addressing what the conflict he chose "says about the use of America's military power, and America's broader leadership in the world, under my presidency."

His book "The Audacity of Hope" and his Nobel speech established the same predicates for U.S. military intervention — an allied coalition and use of multinational power.

"We know that the United States, as the world's most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help," Obama said Monday. "In such cases, we should not be afraid to act, but the burden of action should not be America's alone."

news flash nobody cares about Libya only the GOP as it gives them another chance to attack Obama..people are worried about the lack of jobs and income in this country

Are you shitting me? I think a lot of the stuff the GOP says/does is bullshit, but in this instance every member of Congress should be outraged regardless of party lines. Obama just took a steaming shit on the Constitution regarding Congress' right/responsibility for declaring war.

Obama should be impeached, just as I believed Bush should have been.

Ron Paul 2012

No gym for home, work out floor with 30, but is it for 20 like 30 lb when you no lift it to be for men, for 30 lbs instead? or half is 10 for 20 pounds?

Are you shitting me? I think a lot of the stuff the GOP says/does is bullshit, but in this instance every member of Congress should be outraged regardless of party lines. Obama just took a steaming shit on the Constitution regarding Congress' right/responsibility for declaring war.

Obama should be impeached, just as I believed Bush should have been.

Obama did not declare war, thanks to the Patriot Act the POTUS can do just about anything in the middle east and say it was a preemptive strike.

William F. Buckley describes a conservative as, "someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop." - and then proceeds to drag civilization back to times best left in history's dungheap.

Obama did not declare war, thanks to the Patriot Act the POTUS can do just about anything in the middle east and say it was a preemptive strike.

Oh, so an unconstitutional law gives Obama the right to ignore the Constitution? I'll keep that in mind.

Nothing short of a constitutional amendment can change the war powers clause which explicitly states that only congress may declare war. The president may defend our country with no declaration, however I'm pretty sure Libya doesn't qualify.

Just because you don't call something a war does not make it *not* a war. How about we call it a happy fun party - would that make it constitutional? The Iraq Happy Fun Party - it is kind of catchy.

Ron Paul 2012

No gym for home, work out floor with 30, but is it for 20 like 30 lb when you no lift it to be for men, for 30 lbs instead? or half is 10 for 20 pounds?

Are you shitting me? I think a lot of the stuff the GOP says/does is bullshit, but in this instance every member of Congress should be outraged regardless of party lines. Obama just took a steaming shit on the Constitution regarding Congress' right/responsibility for declaring war.
Obama should be impeached, just as I believed Bush should have been.

Originally Posted by LAM

Obama did not declare war, thanks to the Patriot Act the POTUS can do just about anything in the middle east and say it was a preemptive strike.

news flash nobody cares about Libya only the GOP as it gives them another chance to attack Obama..people are worried about the lack of jobs and income in this country

Heres a newsflash, lam - everyone is slamming him. Not just the GOP. If you haven't noticed, everyone is 'caring' about it.

Oh, I am not familiar with the patriot act circumventing the constitution in regards to war. The Iraq war was approved, but that was prior to the act. Since your so good with the cut n' pastes, please give us the info where he can reword the word war with another nation in order to commit to a war without congressional approval. I figure it's another lam'ism where you just throw shit out without knowing what the fuck your talking about.

The facts are this - he ran on a campaign bashing bush about the wars. Now he is assisting shitbags that have known terrorists within their ranks. The commander of the opposition let that cat out of the bag. So, now instead of getting blown up from their pussy ied's, we're feeding them and flying sorties for them? This is all some bullshit. To top that, he will not bar the idea to weaponize them.

Darn tootin! How about when Bush's cronies stated is was (ahem) a 'Slam Dunk' on WMD's, then sent, WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL mind you, our men and women into harms' way, killing thousands of our troops..and then, Ooops..'those weapons of mass destruction gotta be round here somewheres (quoted directly from Bush himself, joking at the WH press conference dinner).

Answer that Mr. Righteous Republican.

I will answer that, although I am not republican.

A president can send troops under action for 30 days before needing approval from congress, besides, they hold the purse strings. Obama, for his intents and purposes, is labeling this a police action - he had some other diatribe for a name, but considers it a police action - which, based on what we are currently doing there, it cannot be called just that. I am not sure that is actually legal, but it seems to be agreed upon precedent.

Bush achieved congressional approval and had many backers including Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer - I assume you idolize them enough to respect their decisions to back bush. They had read the same intelligence as Bush and his staff had and came to the same conclusions. Saddamn was also on video various times claiming he had WMD's and would use them on Isreal and other western countries. Also, why would the UN make 19 resolutions to try and force Sadamn and his regime to allow weapons inspectors to search his country for WMDs? They would not make those decisions based on one countries desires knowing other UN countries have veto powers.

Based on the intelligence at the time, what saddamn was declaring, prior history of using them on his own people and the instability regarding Sadamn with middle eastern oil markets, it lead down the path to war.

So tell me liberal, what excuse does Obama have. He is in way over his head and it shows. His speech last night not only left the American populace even more confused, it left world leaders scratching their heads as well. More teleprompter beating-around-the-bush side talk won't buffalo his way out of this mess he is creating. He is a very smart man - but he shows us he has very little wisdom, experience and will fold like a deck chair.

Oh, so an unconstitutional law gives Obama the right to ignore the Constitution? I'll keep that in mind.

All presidents since roosevelt have violated the constitutional requirement that congress formally declare war. Thank Harry Truman for setting that precedent with the Korean war. Thus, all presidents since Roosevelt has violated the constitution and if you don't believe me read this. Obama needs to give back the friggin nobel prize, not that he ever deserved it in the first place.

What Happened to the American Declaration of War?
March 29, 2011 | 0853 GMT
PRINT Text Resize:
ShareThis

By George Friedman

In my book “The Next Decade,” I spend a good deal of time considering the relation of the American Empire to the American Republic and the threat the empire poses to the republic. If there is a single point where these matters converge, it is in the constitutional requirement that Congress approve wars through a declaration of war and in the abandonment of this requirement since World War II. This is the point where the burdens and interests of the United States as a global empire collide with the principles and rights of the United States as a republic.

World War II was the last war the United States fought with a formal declaration of war. The wars fought since have had congressional approval, both in the sense that resolutions were passed and that Congress appropriated funds, but the Constitution is explicit in requiring a formal declaration. It does so for two reasons, I think. The first is to prevent the president from taking the country to war without the consent of the governed, as represented by Congress. Second, by providing for a specific path to war, it provides the president power and legitimacy he would not have without that declaration; it both restrains the president and empowers him. Not only does it make his position as commander in chief unassailable by authorizing military action, it creates shared responsibility for war. A declaration of war informs the public of the burdens they will have to bear by leaving no doubt that Congress has decided on a new order — war — with how each member of Congress voted made known to the public.

Almost all Americans have heard Franklin Roosevelt’s speech to Congress on Dec. 8, 1941: “Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan … I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.”

It was a moment of majesty and sobriety, and with Congress’ affirmation, represented the unquestioned will of the republic. There was no going back, and there was no question that the burden would be borne. True, the Japanese had attacked the United States, making getting the declaration easier. But that’s what the founders intended: Going to war should be difficult; once at war, the commander in chief’s authority should be unquestionable.

Forgoing the Declaration

In understanding how war and constitutional norms became separated, we must begin with the first major undeclared war in American history (the Civil War was not a foreign war), Korea. When North Korea invaded South Korea, Truman took recourse to the new U.N. Security Council. He wanted international sanction for the war and was able to get it because the Soviet representatives happened to be boycotting the Security Council over other issues at the time. Truman’s view was that U.N. sanction for the war superseded the requirement for a declaration of war in two ways. First, it was not a war in the strict sense, he argued, but a “police action” under the U.N. Charter. Second, the U.N. Charter constituted a treaty, therefore implicitly binding the United States to go to war if the United Nations so ordered. Whether Congress’ authorization to join the United Nations both obligated the United States to wage war at U.N. behest, obviating the need for declarations of war because Congress had already authorized police actions, is an interesting question. Whatever the answer, Truman set a precedent that wars could be waged without congressional declarations of war and that other actions — from treaties to resolutions to budgetary authorizations — mooted declarations of war.

If this was the founding precedent, the deepest argument for the irrelevancy of the declaration of war is to be found in nuclear weapons. ............

It is said that there is no precedent for fighting al Qaeda, for example, because it is not a nation but a subnational group. Therefore, Bush could not reasonably have been expected to ask for a declaration of war. But there is precedent: Thomas Jefferson asked for and received a declaration of war against the Barbary pirates. This authorized Jefferson to wage war against a subnational group of pirates as if they were a nation.

Had Bush requested a declaration of war on al Qaeda on Sept. 12, 2001, I suspect it would have been granted overwhelmingly, and the public would have understood that the United States was now at war for as long as the president thought wise. The president would have been free to carry out operations as he saw fit. Roosevelt did not have to ask for special permission to invade Guadalcanal, send troops to India, or invade North Africa. In the course of fighting Japan, Germany and Italy, it was understood that he was free to wage war as he thought fit. In the same sense, a declaration of war on Sept. 12 would have freed him to fight al Qaeda wherever they were or to move to block them wherever the president saw fit.......

Read more: What Happened to the American Declaration of War? | STRATFOR

A president can send troops under action for 30 days before needing approval from congress, besides, they hold the purse strings. Obama, for his intents and purposes, is labeling this a police action - he had some other diatribe for a name, but considers it a police action - which, based on what we are currently doing there, it cannot be called just that. I am not sure that is actually legal, but it seems to be agreed upon precedent.

Bush achieved congressional approval and had many backers including Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer - I assume you idolize them enough to respect their decisions to back bush. They had read the same intelligence as Bush and his staff had and came to the same conclusions. Saddamn was also on video various times claiming he had WMD's and would use them on Isreal and other western countries. Also, why would the UN make 19 resolutions to try and force Sadamn and his regime to allow weapons inspectors to search his country for WMDs? They would not make those decisions based on one countries desires knowing other UN countries have veto powers.

Based on the intelligence at the time, what saddamn was declaring, prior history of using them on his own people and the instability regarding Sadamn with middle eastern oil markets, it lead down the path to war.

So tell me liberal, what excuse does Obama have. He is in way over his head and it shows. His speech last night not only left the American populace even more confused, it left world leaders scratching their heads as well. More teleprompter beating-around-the-bush side talk won't buffalo his way out of this mess he is creating. He is a very smart man - but he shows us he has very little wisdom, experience and will fold like a deck chair.

I'm actually not a liberal, but thanks for not lumpin me in with Bush. I voted for him twice, both times by mistake.

Thanks for clearing it up. It doesnt give either side the right to do it at all. However I am sick of people apologizing for Bush while Obama is left to clean up a Major mess. McCain would've had the same mess to clean up had he been elected.

Is this not a UN action? All we are doing is what he said we would do, provide air support and pull-out letting the other Nations of the UN take the lead. I had originally thought why should we even get involved, when more than likely if the rebels win they'll just implement their own form of Sharia law, who is free under that? But I realize if Gadhafi wins he'll be back with a vengence, start aiding radical musim jihadists...he's already blamed us for the uprising saying the CIA doped the rebels with psychoactive kool-aid. Plus as we've seen in other nations with a pissed off dictator many will be slaughtered who were in opposition to his rule....

Coarse edged youth, the irish pendants string from their smiles
not yet plucked as to slacken the seams
and drag down the features of age,
no folds or creases from unkempt wear
eyes of tranquilty, crystalline-beads
no sign of despair in their hair, nor their hearts
but oh they have yet to be experienced and that makes aging so very worth it...ML circa2012

Are you shitting me? I think a lot of the stuff the GOP says/does is bullshit, but in this instance every member of Congress should be outraged regardless of party lines. Obama just took a steaming shit on the Constitution regarding Congress' right/responsibility for declaring war.